Cor blimey it's tough in here isn't it. For about 2 years I have been an avid reader of this forum and never contributed, but learnt a lot from the various articles and advice that you find in here as I said I look in awe at the beautiful Photo's contained within.

I thought I would make a contribution and believe me it took some courage to do. I thought I would start by trying to create a discussion from the viewpoint of Canon and the future and then see what you the members thought. But it is clear to see that I have been slain, so I will now withdraw.Best RegardsGary

Come on Gary, chin-up...it's a tough crowd out there today. Must be a slow news day. But hell, don't roll over, move on, keep posting! Maybe simplify a little. In a few hours this will all be forgotten anyway.

Everytime I go to a camera shop, there is almost always someone buying a 1100D. People understand the image quality differences over a phone or P&S and the 1100D kit is the cheapest way to high image quality. Canon understands this, and it is one of the reasons they are number 1. People like making great photos, but not everyone wants to spend big $$$. Looking at the marketing and distribution of other companies, I think Canon will be the goto brand for many people's first serious camera for a long time.

I wouldn't be so pessimistic about CSC and mirrorless cameras. As the performance gap with DSLRs narrows, I'd be more concerned about the future of non-pro DSLRs. Assuming they maintain an AF, battery, fps, or build quailty advantage, there will always be a market for 7D and 1D series cameras. But many will move on to lighter gear with combination optical and electronic viewfinders. This trend is already evident in a lot of markets known for their high level of technology early adopters.

Agree with your thoughts on Canon sticking to their strategic plans. Hey, when your number 1 and also one of the few profitable camera companies, you must be doing something right?

Lastly, everyone knows real photographers use Deardorffs. Ok, maybe not. But I don't know how useful a definition is. The popularity of fixed lens, large sensor P & S cameras in recent years demonstrates that you don't have to use a DSLR to be considered a photographer. A legion of Leica shooters would also agree with this. The camera market is fragmenting rapidly. There is so much choice out there. So many options. Also, I think Apple are about to launch ads highlighting the number of photographs taken worldwide with iphones. Apparently, the number of "selfies" alone taken each day is greater than the total world population. Difficult to exclude that many people from the definition of photographers. But I know what your getting at.

I wish for Canon and everybody else to stop classifying cameras (and lenses) into "entry-level" and "pro" categories. The purchase of a DSLR should be based on (a) budget and (b) requirements. Unless somebody gives me a 1DX (for free), I will never purchase one. For the type of photography that I do, an xxxD is more than adequate.

Logged

Happily ignoring the laws of physics and the rules of photography to create better pictures.

paul13walnut5

I wish for Canon and everybody else to stop classifying cameras (and lenses) into "entry-level" and "pro" categories. The purchase of a DSLR should be based on (a) budget and (b) requirements. Unless somebody gives me a 1DX (for free), I will never purchase one. For the type of photography that I do, an xxxD is more than adequate.

Back to the Topic ... I think Canon is somewhat worried about their "mid-range" cameras, as they cannot (a) make them too good, as that will pull sales away from their xD lot; but they've (b) raised the bar considerably with the xxxD range, which means they have to offer a lot more to entice people into buying the xxD offering.

Sure they had a whale of time when digital took off, as it basically gave them the opportunity to "downgrade" the specs on their cameras to pre-2000 "Rebel" level ... I mean, it took them until last year (2012) to finally present us with a non-1D camera that has an AF system nearly as good as the EOS 3 (of 1998) - that's fourteen (14) years! But now the end has come ... m4/3 has proven viable and is now a stable system that is getting better by the month ... mobile device cameras are more than adequate for daily snaps ... and still Canon insists on crippling their cheap DSLR cameras ... hey, if you're gonna put a DiG!C5 inside the 100D, enable all its features ... otherwise, what's the point?

Canon will continue dominating two markets ... the sports slash nature scene (extreme telephoto & FPS) and the beginner segment (until Olympus and Panasonic cotton that they should make DSLM cameras at xxxD prices and get their distribution network up to standard).

Logged

Happily ignoring the laws of physics and the rules of photography to create better pictures.

First I'll fess up. I'm a luddite, I bought my first smart phone last October. (Before that I had a Blackberry...) Anyway, I have used my phone to make some images and the quality is limited by the pixel size. I'm a physicist so you can trust me on this - Physics says it will ever be thus. Of course, the signal to noise may improve by 2 stops (using a Foveon-like flip chip) - but the same can be done for other sensors.

However... I like call myself a photographer too. To prove this to myself, I bought a 1D4 and a 5D2. By any realistic measure, both are excellent cameras. I have a bag full of ZE glass and a few white lenses too. Lenses are not the problem either.

Weight and bulk are. They are VERY BIG problems indeed.

The only reason I will carry 30 lbs of camera gear is maximise image quality. Offer me something that does the same job but can be used more frequently and I may buy it. I doubt that makes me unusual. I got fed up leaving my camera at home so I took a flyer at a used Fuji X-E1 and a couple of lenses.

Here's the message - the image quality is the equal of my DSLR's.

I think this means the SLR camera is about to disappear. Fuji caused it with the X100. Zeiss has realised it too - they've figured there's lots of money to be made with lenses suited to mirrorless APS-C cameras. Sony evidently suspects it (witness the RX1.)

Of course, it won't happen this year, or maybe even next... but don't hold your breath, waiting for a 5D Mk V.

BTW - I have an EOS 3. To the person who claimed its autofocus was better that a 1D3... dream right on. There are three points to choose from but the resolution of film is about equal to 2 Mp so you can't actually tell if it misfocused...

Ces't moi! (thats French for I'm back) Thankyou for the words of encouragement.First I apologise for calling the 1100D a Dog, it was somewhat harsh, I should have said somthing like "it's specifications are dated now"

Second: The hole point of this thread was to get a great discussion going on the topic of future strategy by Canon and how it might affect us, by the quality of the responses this descussion seems to be shaping up nicely.

Third: Still dont get it Wickidwombat/pdirestajr then I suggest you split like a bananna.

paul13walnut5

First I'll fess up. I'm a luddite, I bought my first smart phone last October. (Before that I had a Blackberry...) Anyway, I have used my phone to make some images and the quality is limited by the pixel size. I'm a physicist so you can trust me on this - Physics says it will ever be thus. Of course, the signal to noise may improve by 2 stops (using a Foveon-like flip chip) - but the same can be done for other sensors.

However... I like call myself a photographer too. To prove this to myself, I bought a 1D4 and a 5D2. By any realistic measure, both are excellent cameras. I have a bag full of ZE glass and a few white lenses too. Lenses are not the problem either.

Weight and bulk are. They are VERY BIG problems indeed.

The only reason I will carry 30 lbs of camera gear is maximise image quality. Offer me something that does the same job but can be used more frequently and I may buy it. I doubt that makes me unusual. I got fed up leaving my camera at home so I took a flyer at a used Fuji X-E1 and a couple of lenses.

Here's the message - the image quality is the equal of my DSLR's.

I think this means the SLR camera is about to disappear. Fuji caused it with the X100. Zeiss has realised it too - they've figured there's lots of money to be made with lenses suited to mirrorless APS-C cameras. Sony evidently suspects it (witness the RX1.)

Of course, it won't happen this year, or maybe even next... but don't hold your breath, waiting for a 5D Mk V.

BTW - I have an EOS 3. To the person who claimed its autofocus was better that a 1D3... dream right on. There are three points to choose from but the resolution of film is about equal to 2 Mp so you can't actually tell if it misfocused...

It was me!

Some 1d3 users would have had it that a M is better than their copy.

Film at 2MP? I used to get clean detailed 40mp scans on my minolta dimage scan elite 5400 with velvia 50.And as I was scanning rgb emulsion you could argue (a la foveon since you seem keen) that it was equivalent to a 120mp bayer scan. But I won't. Even if you go down the inverse square route of digital sampling thats still a strong 6mp and certainly with zero colour interpolation inlike bayer sensors....

And I was talking about the Af system, specifically ECF. We can't do a comparison with any digital camera as it wasn't implemented on any. I didn't want this to become a film vs digital debate.

Not wanting to divert too much, but as the owner of some nice Canon cameras, how do you think the X-E1 stacks up in comparison? You're obviously happy with the image quality and the size of the system. But how are you finding the AF speed and EVF? Since buying it, have you tended to use it a lot, or do you still predominantly use the 1D4 and 5D2?

I'm curious how much further mirrorless cameras need to go in order to be regared as comparable with DSLRs for non-sports / non-action photography. Or do you think they are there already?

Two truths - 1. you gets whats you pay for, and 2. the best camera is one with you.The smart phone market plays to both, and it also explains the size and price variance of the p&s offerings by allmanufacturers. As camera manufacturers add none photographic features such as wi-fi and gps, many of the"advantages" of the cell phone camera go away. Cell phones are getting bigger (look at the new Samsung Galaxy) and p&s cameras are getting smaller to the point that the display takes the whole back panel. The pixelwars on the low end are about done - rumors about Nokia's 40+ megapix phone not withstanding - as thereis little practical difference between 8/12/16 mp cameras in image quality terms = particularly at 4X6. I think themarket leaders in this segment will be the ones that manufacture their own chips - canon, samsung, sony, panasonic as examples. One way or the other, this segment will remain important for manufacturers as a profit center and for "brand capture" purposes.

... BTW - I have an EOS 3. To the person who claimed its autofocus was better that a 1D3... dream right on. There are three points to choose from but the resolution of film is about equal to 2 Mp so you can't actually tell if it misfocused...

It was me!

Some 1d3 users would have had it that a M is better than their copy.

Film at 2MP? I used to get clean detailed 40mp scans on my minolta dimage scan elite 5400 with velvia 50.And as I was scanning rgb emulsion you could argue (a la foveon since you seem keen) that it was equivalent to a 120mp bayer scan. But I won't. Even if you go down the inverse square route of digital sampling thats still a strong 6mp and certainly with zero colour interpolation inlike bayer sensors....

And I was talking about the Af system, specifically ECF. We can't do a comparison with any digital camera as it wasn't implemented on any. I didn't want this to become a film vs digital debate.

Hi Paul - I didn't want to either. I'm still a self-confessed Luddite and I shoot film too....

However... You might want to look at the resolution of 20+ year old lenses. Very few have spot sizes that are smaller than 20 microns. This means you can't capture more than 50 lp/mm and intrinsically not more than 1800x1200 spots. The fine structure gives the illusion of extraordinary high resolution, which you can capture in scanning but it's really a form of noise.

On the 1D3 vs EOS 3 - I shot tens of thousands of frames with my 1D3. The focus was comparable with my 1D4. The few who had difficulty could have had it resolved with a trip back to Canon. Mark you, they disbelieve us as a matter of routine and it might have taken several trips.

Not wanting to divert too much, but as the owner of some nice Canon cameras, how do you think the X-E1 stacks up in comparison? You're obviously happy with the image quality and the size of the system. But how are you finding the AF speed and EVF? Since buying it, have you tended to use it a lot, or do you still predominantly use the 1D4 and 5D2?

I'm curious how much further mirrorless cameras need to go in order to be regared as comparable with DSLRs for non-sports / non-action photography. Or do you think they are there already?

Several questions... apologies for the OT but I was asked.

EVF - not as good as an optical finder (particularly if you have a $200 aftermarket screen fitted) but quite usable. The resolution is 2.3 Mp and I can't see granularity. It's fast enough but needs better dynamic range. On the upside, you get the benefit of enhanced ISO in dim conditions. The dioptre range is excellent.

Even though the resolution is higher, I find the viewfinder is not as good as live view on a Canon with a Zacuto loupe. However - if you have it in MF mode, you can click the scroll wheel and get magnified live view of the focus spot in the eyepiece. This is fantastic if you're recycling old MF lenses from another system. (I have a set of Zuiko OM's from years gone by.)

AF - this takes some setting up. Once you configure the camera correctly, the AF is better than a 5D2 (but that's easy.) It's more than sufficient for most of the photography I do (but that's easy too.) There's a focus mash technique that makes the AF near instantaneous but I don't think its good enough for sports or BIF.

Like the AF, correct set-up gets the shutter release well into high-end SLR territory. It clicks at 6 frames per sec and does this without any drama.

On the whole, the best camera is the one you have with you. I still want to use my 5D2 and 1D4 but I've become somewhat reluctant to drag one everywhere I go...

To be fair to the Canon's -

The Canon user interface is streets ahead of the X-E1. Some of the X-E1 button placements are dumb. In particular, you can't select AF point without sticking your left thumb in your right nostril. Someone must have done this to be funny....

It could do with a dedicated DOF preview button and maybe greater flexibility on the assigning of buttons.

The position of the tripod screw is moronic (but RRS fixed that) and it needs a larger grip.

Battery life is ok - in fact it's better than a 5D2 when used as a live view camera.

I find it takes a long time to write files but raw + jpeg is 30Mb and I don't have the world's fastest SD card either. I think this speaks to not enough processor grunt which may be related to battery life.

To summarise - I think Compact System Cameras are already very serious competition for the SLR. There are some wrinkles to work out but the jump in performance between the X100 > X-Pro1 > X-E1 is profound.

... BTW - I have an EOS 3. To the person who claimed its autofocus was better that a 1D3... dream right on. There are three points to choose from but the resolution of film is about equal to 2 Mp so you can't actually tell if it misfocused...

It was me!

Some 1d3 users would have had it that a M is better than their copy.

Film at 2MP? I used to get clean detailed 40mp scans on my minolta dimage scan elite 5400 with velvia 50.And as I was scanning rgb emulsion you could argue (a la foveon since you seem keen) that it was equivalent to a 120mp bayer scan. But I won't. Even if you go down the inverse square route of digital sampling thats still a strong 6mp and certainly with zero colour interpolation inlike bayer sensors....

And I was talking about the Af system, specifically ECF. We can't do a comparison with any digital camera as it wasn't implemented on any. I didn't want this to become a film vs digital debate.

Hi Paul - I didn't want to either. I'm still a self-confessed Luddite and I shoot film too....

However... You might want to look at the resolution of 20+ year old lenses. Very few have spot sizes that are smaller than 20 microns. This means you can't capture more than 50 lp/mm and intrinsically not more than 1800x1200 spots. The fine structure gives the illusion of extraordinary high resolution, which you can capture in scanning but it's really a form of noise.

On the 1D3 vs EOS 3 - I shot tens of thousands of frames with my 1D3. The focus was comparable with my 1D4. The few who had difficulty could have had it resolved with a trip back to Canon. Mark you, they disbelieve us as a matter of routine and it might have taken several trips.

Okaaaaay, but I'm talking AF...

Did you use ECF on your 3? Would you like to see it on an EOS DSLR?Most of the lenses I used (and occassionally still use) on my 3 weren't quite 20 years old (the design of my 70-200 dates from 1996 I think - and can still hold it's own in imatests)